A Request For The Legal Minds Who Follow This Blog

May 2, 2012 by Bradley Jardis
Filed under: Corruption, Court, Issues, New Hampshire, Question, Update

During my involvement with representing Jason Talley, I was fortunate to have been anonymously contacted by several people whom were well versed in the law. These people were invaluable to helping me help Jason escape imprisonment on what he believed to be corrupt court orders.

I recently heard from a law enforcement officer about an awesome judge in Carroll County who calls the jail on the weekends on her own accord simply because she wants to make sure defendants do not get held just because the court is closed. She legally doesn’t have to do that. I think she probably does it because she is a good person who uses her authority to protect individual liberty. I’ve never met this judge, but she sounds awesome.

The owner of this blog, and my friend, Ian Freeman, is presently attempting to legally require Judge Burke’s recusal from his present trespassing case. This morning I added a response from the Cheshire County Attorney’s office that I view as the most detailed response from the State regarding the incident with the judge illegally ordering Ademo Freeman’s arrest.

Judge Burke lied to have a resident of Keene, NH arrested, and then shifted the blame to law enforcement. How is this acceptable conduct for anyone, let alone a powerful judicial officer?

I would appreciate any ideas on how Ian should proceed.

The timeline of the case can be found here.

-/-

I’ve also heard from a lawyer that Judge Burke was Sullivan County Attorney Marc Hathaway’s “protégé.” If anyone knows anything about that, please let me know. You can contact me anonymously by just searching for a random throwaway email service.

The County Attorney was, of course, the decider that the Judge shouldn’t be charged with illegally ordering a citizens arrest.

JoeCNY

Brad,
I assume Ian filled in the blanks of the sample recusal motion that you provided?
May I also assume that a complaint has been made to the judicial conduct committee of NH against Judge Burke?

Looks like the recusal and stay for appeal ship is about to sail. Too bad that if an appeal is taken on the recusal issue after trial, Ian’s papers do not contain arguments for why the judge should recuse in Ian’s particular case. For example, the poor temperament displayed in the past when Ian represented himself i.e. the “Sit down” incident before Judge Burke. I’m sure there are more examples that could have been developed.

Of course the recusal motion is really a side show. What about a defense to the actual charge?

Hope it works for the best, but it really isn’t worth much bother when the client is as simultaneously righteous and clueless as Ian is. Isn’t he going to claim Admiralty law, UCC rubbish, or enlist the legal brain trust Marc Stevens and his nonsense? What about the MLK combined with the Mother Theresa/ Lysander Spooner defense? Maybe the Shire Society cloak of freedom defense will work.

It’s hard to represent a fool for a client. Good luck.
- http://www.FreeKeene.com/ Bradley Jardis
  
  Hey Joe.
  
  Do you not find any merit in the argument that for Judge Burke to be willing to engage in criminal conduct to silence someone exercising their constitutional rights, he just cannot be trusted to be fair and impartial?
  
  I’ve never been into the Admiralty law, UCC, or Marc Stevens method of legal stuff. I’ve actually always been rather turned off by it. I’ve been reading federal/state appeals court opinions for years now and I’ve never seen one court take any of that stuff seriously.
- JoeCNY
  
  Of course Brad, the argument that “Burke is to be willing to engage..” is a valid argument. The conclusion not to charge him by the special prosecutor for reasons that the judge did not have the requisite intent is a subjective one. The argument in opposition to Ian’s motion for reconsideration uses that conclusion. If Ian’s argument had recounted via sworn affidavit 2 or 3 examples of Burke’s tendency or appearance of bias and lack of reason in dealings specific to Ian, it might have persuasive effect. I’m afraid that Ian given two chances to make the case it’s too late to get more evidence in front of the court. Maybe not. But you can’t expect to win by just motioning to reconsider without substantive new evidence or argument. I figured that the blanket motion for recusal was simply a tactic to bring light and shame to Burke in repeat fashion. Fine, as far as it can go, but it’s Ian’s job to prove that Burke will be biased in HIS case.
- JoeCNY
  
  Brad, I’m commenting a second time, because on this blog no attention is being given to the substance of the charge. What about a defense to that?
- JoeCNY
  
  The Admiralty law, UCC, or Marc Stevens bit was not directed at you Brad. It was snark directed to Ian.
- MaineShark
  
  From what I’ve seen of Ian’s negative reaction to the folks who post the Admiralty/UCC nonsense on the forums, I think it would be a safe assumption that he’s not going to use that…
- JoeCNY
  
  Maybe so Maineshark. Thing is though, at least the Admiralty/UCC crazies are able to formulate a losing argument why they are sovereigns. Ian just says it’s so. Works well as propaganda but not so well in the balance sheet of the society we live in. It would be easy to veer off to a discussion of all the shit for CD that has gone on, but that would be to confront Ian’s naive world view almost head on. Why waste the time.
- MaineShark
  
  Sovereignty is the default. Anyone arguing that a given individual is /not/ the sovereign of his own self, is the one obligated to demonstrate the validity of his argument.
  
  It is demonstrable that I have the primary claim to my body, since it’s, you know, /mine/ and all that, and does what I say, and houses my “self” (however you define that). If some other individual or group of individuals wants to make a claim to my body, it’s up to /them/ to demonstrate why they should have such a claim.
  
  The “Admiralty” folks fail because they want the State to exist, and they also want to be sovereign. You can’t have it both ways. If I’m the sovereign of myself, then I cannot recognize any other entity as having a higher claim to myself. But if I accept the State’s assertions, then the State does have that higher claim. Not being a Statist, I have no such problem, but since those folks are simultaneously arguing in favor of the State, and in favor of their own sovereignty, their claims are nonsensical hypocrisy.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000626388441 Dennis Wiley Hawthorne III

In matters like that I recommend Robert-Arthur:Menards’ method of NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING AND INTENT, and a CLAIM OF RIGHT. If after 30 days no response: you have The Law. I have partially tried this, it seems to be a good method, I would even go so far as to publish it in the local paper for 30 days as a legal filing (for everybody to see) and when no response is forth coming… You have The Law. If anybody is trying this I would love to get together and hone these skills. EXAMPLE: I so&so, understand that I inherited all things from “my God” and hereby claim my right to acquire, possess, and protect all things, including but not limited to: marijuana. If there be any disagreement please make notice at BLA BLA BLA…within 30 days of this notice, after such time I CLAIM MY RIGHT, any person violating this right subjects themselves to personal liability for the sum of $10000000 in Gold or Silver…. You know something like that. When no payment is made… LIENS!!!
- Despotic_Keene
  
  This is brilliant.
  
  Step 1: Publish that thing in the newspapers.
  
  Step 2: Go down and light up a big fat one in front of the police station while blasting Public Enemy and screaming “FUCK YOU PIGS!” repeatedly.
  
  Step 3: ???
  
  Step 4: Profit!
- http://www.FreeKeene.com/ Bradley Jardis
  
  Dennis,
  
  I appreciate you sharing that legal theory with me.
  
  Liens can lead to prosecution for serious crimes, and I’d rather avoid that.
kinley2

As in Neil Young’s lyric, she has “…a kinder, gentler machine gun hand…”
Ascarid

Did Ian file a Judicial Conduct Complaint as a result of the “stand up/sit down” episode?

Did Ian file a Judicial Conduct Complaint as a result of the “star chamber proceedings” immediately after the “stand up/sit down” episode?

If not, why not?